Cyril was an Arian:
Having first been ordained as a priest around 343 AD by his Bishop Maximus, Cyril later repudiated his own bishop (who upheld the Nicene Creed), at the request of Arian usurpers, in exchange for ordination as bishop of Jerusalem in about 350. He was consecrated by one of the arch-enemies of Athanasius, an Arian named Acacius of Caesarea.
Jerome records that Cyril received a bribe in exchange for repudiating his Nicene predecessor:
§ AD349 Maximus the 40th bishop of Jerusalem after Macarius dies, after whom the Arians take possession of the church, that is Cyril, Eutychius, Cyril again, Irenaeus, Cyril a third time, Hilarius, Cyril a fourth time. Of these, Cyril had been ordained presbyter by Maximus and thus after his death the episcopate was promised to him by Acacius bishop of Caesarea and other Arians if he would repudiate the ordination of Maximus. He ministered as a deacon in the church. On account of this impiety of priesthood he was compensated by a bribe. He degraded Heraclius, whom the dying Maximus had appointed in his place, from bishop to presbyter, harassing him by various deceits. – Jerome, Chronicon, year 349
Some people might wrongly assume that if he was being kicked out of his own church repeatedly, it must be a sign that he’s fighting against the forces of evil. But in reality, this time period was marked by political intrigue and infighting between heretics. Cyril was actually in a competition with other Arians to retain power, particularly with Acacius, the Arian who ordained him. Athanasius speaks about Acacius frequently in his writings:
At Nicæa then, which had been fixed upon, the Council has not met, but a second edict was issued, convening the Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at Seleucia the Rugged, as it is called, in Isauria. The professed reason of such a meeting was to treat of the faith touching our Lord Jesus Christ; and those who alleged it, were Ursacius, Valens, and one Germinius from Pannonia; and from Syria, Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. These men who had always been of the Arian party, and “understood neither how they believe or whereof they affirm,” and were silently deceiving first one and then another, and scattering the second sowing of their heresy, influenced some who seemed to be somewhat, and the Emperor Constantius among them, being a heretic, on some pretence about the Faith, to call a Council; under the idea that they should be able to put into the shade the Nicene Council, and prevail upon all to turn round, and to establish irreligion everywhere instead of the Truth. – Athanasius, History of the Councils (De Synodis), part 1, paragraph 1
But when Acacius, and Eudoxius, and Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve the strongest reprobation? – Athanasius, History of the Councils (De Synodis), part 3, paragraph 37
Can we then any more account such men Christians? Or what sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor writing, but alter and change every thing according to the times? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you “do not decline the faith published at the Dedication,” and in it is written that the Son is “Exact Image of God’s essence,” why is it you write in Isauria, “we reject the Like in essence?” for if the Son is not like the Father according to essence, how is He “exact image of the essence?” – Athanasius, History of the Councils (De Synodis), part 3, paragraph 37
Under these disgraceful and unseemly circumstances their flight took place. And the holy Council [of Sardica], which had been assembled out of more than five and thirty provinces, perceiving the malice of the Arians, admitted Athanasius and his fellows to answer to the charges which the others had brought against them, and to declare the sufferings which they had undergone. And when they had thus made their defense, as we said before, they approved and so highly admired their conduct that they gladly embraced their communion, and wrote letters to all quarters, to the diocese of each, and especially to Alexandria and Egypt, and the Libyas, declaring Athanasius and his friends to be innocent, and free from all blame, and their opponents to be calumniators, evil-doers, and everything rather than Christians. Accordingly they dismissed them in peace; but deposed Stephanus and Menophantus, Acacius and George of Laodicea, Ursacius and Valens, Theodorus and Narcissus. For against Gregory, who had been sent to Alexandria by the Emperor, they put forth a proclamation to the effect that he had never been made a Bishop, and that he ought not to be called a Christian. They therefore declared the ordinations which he professed to have conferred to be void, and commanded that they should not be even named in the Church, on account of their novel and illegal nature. Thus Athanasius and his friends were dismissed in peace (the letters concerning them are inserted at the end on account of their length ), and the Council was dissolved. – Athanasius, History of the Arians, part 3, chapter 17
But let your love overcome the malice of the heretics. For we believe that according to your prayers the Lord will be gracious and permit me to see you speedily. Meanwhile you will learn the proceedings at the Synod by what all the Bishops have written to you, and from the appended letter you will perceive the deposition of Theodore, Narcissus, Stephen, Acacius, George, Menophantus, Ursacius and Valens. – Athanasius, Letter 47
Acacius was actually deposed by a council of Nicene bishops at Sardica, but their deposition had no effect, as the emperor Constantius ruled the church, and no one could overrule his choice of bishops.
Eventually, when Theodosius summoned a council at Constantinople in 381, Cyril of Jerusalem saw the political tides shifting and decided to change his views to align with the Nicene Creed:
The emperor making no delay summoned a Synod of the prelates of his own faith, in order that he might establish the Nicene Creed, and appoint a bishop of Constantinople: and inasmuch as he was not without hope that he might win the Macedonians over to his own views, he invited those who presided over that sect to be present also. There met therefore on this occasion of the Homoousian party, Timothy from Alexandria, Cyril from Jerusalem, who at that time recognized the doctrine of homoousion, having retracted his former opinion. – Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 5, chapter 8
The emperor soon after convened a council of orthodox bishops, for the purpose of confirming the decrees of Nicæa, and of electing a bishop to the vacant see of Constantinople. He likewise summoned the Macedonians to this assembly; for as their doctrines differed but little from those of the Catholic Church, he judged that it would be easy to effect a reunion with them. About a hundred and fifty bishops who maintained the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, were present at this council, as likewise thirty-six of the Macedonian bishops, chiefly from the cities of the Hellespont; of whom the principal were Eleusius, bishop of Cyzicus, and Marcian, bishop of Lampsacus. The other party was under the guidance of Timothy, who had succeeded his brother Peter in the see of Alexandria; of Meletius, bishop of Antioch, who had repaired to Constantinople a short time previously, on account of the election of Gregory, and of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, who had at this period renounced the tenets of the Macedonians which he previously held. Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Acacius, bishop of Berea, were also present at the council. These latter unanimously maintained the decrees of Nicæa, and urged Eleusius and his partisans to conform to these sentiments, reminding them, at the same time, of the embassy they had formerly deputed to Liberius, and of the confession they conveyed to him through the medium of Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, as has been narrated. The Macedonians, however, declared openly that they would never admit the Son to be of the same substance as the Father, whatever confession they might formerly have made to Liberius, and immediately withdrew. They then wrote to those of their adherents in every city, exhorting them not to conform to the doctrines of Nicæa. – Sozomen, Church History, book 7, chapter 7
The Macedonians were a group of Arians named after Macedonius I of Constantinople, who was the friend of Arius and murderer of the previous bishop of Constantinople, Paul the Confessor. This is who Cyril of Jerusalem was aligned with. John Chrysostom and Basil speak of them this way:
But they have dared, beloved, the children of the Arians, and possessed by the madness of the Macedonians, to speak of a great and a small God, and a created God, introducing Hellenism to us. For it is their way to worship a creature, and to magnify one of their gods, and to diminish another. – John Chrysostom, On the Holy Trinity, chapter 1
“But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching. They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof.” – Basil the Great, Letter 105
Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, and Basil wrote their works on the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, since the Macedonians didn’t hold to the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. Sozomen says about them “The Macedonians, however, declared openly that they would never admit the Son to be of the same substance as the Father,” but they also had a heresy about the Holy Spirit , which is the main thing they were called out for as heretics, they were even called “Pneumatomachi,” that is, “fighters against the Spirit” or “opponents of the Spirit.” Gregory of Nyssa says of them:
Epiphanius also talks about Cyril’s consecration by Arians/Macedonians:
Since I have often discussed these things, I believe that will be enough of the same refutations here. The same ones I applied earlier to the root that put forth their heresy are capable of demolishing these Semi-Arians here—[them], and the ones who split off from them, (2) Acacius’ friends and the others who issued a creed at Seleucia in Isauria which is other than the true one. Because I wanted to bring it to light, I have also inserted the whole of the creed they issued at the end, after the creed of Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea which was written as representing them all. (3) But lest it appear that when I put this in the second place I did it from forgetfulness—because it did its fearful damage secretly and accepted a gag as though to < restraint its own teachings > with a bridle in the time of hypocrisy—I shall also say a little about it and its authors, the allies of Acacius, Euzoeus, Eutychius and the rest. (4) And the document before us has plainly altered the confession of the truth. But lest it be said that I have slandered these people, let me point out what was discovered and what, as time went by, became evident in this group of theirs. One of them is Euzoeus of Caesarea, who is their disciple and Acacius’ successor. [That was] after the consecration of Philumen, who was consecrated by Cyril of Jerusalem; and the consecration of the elderly Cyril who was consecrated by Eutychius and his friends; and the consecration of Gelasius who, once more, was consecrated by Cyril of Jerusalem. He was the son of Cyril’s sister. After the consecration of these three and their suspension because of the quarrel between them, Euzoeus was consecrated in his turn. (6) Gemellinus was also one of them, and Philip of Scythopolis, and Athanasius of Scythopolis. These not only teach Arianism publicly and not in secret, as though they had never heard of anything better; they do battle for their heresy, what is more, and persecute those who teach the truth. They are no longer willing merely to refute orthodox believers verbally, but subject them to feuds, violence and murder. For they have done harm, not in one city and country but in many. (38,1) < And* > this Lucius, who has done so much to those who confess the Son of God at Alexandria, is < one of them* >. – Epiphanius, The Panarion 73.37.1-6, 38
The Heavenly Sign of the Cross:
These first-fruits of letters I send from Jerusalem to your God-loving majesty, fitting for you to receive and for me to offer; not filled with words of flattery, but declarative of heavenly visions; nor containing well-composed rhetorical persuasions of words, but by the prophecies of the holy gospels, through the outcome of events, testifying to the truth. For others often crown your precious head with what they have, bringing wreaths fastened with gold, adorned with the most brilliant stones. But we do not crown you with things from the earth (for gifts from the earth have the earth as their end); but we earnestly bring to the knowledge of your piety a divine working of heavenly things, accomplished in Jerusalem in the times of your God-loving reign; not so that you might now come from ignorance to the knowledge of God (for you anticipate even teaching others by your piety); but that you may be confirmed in those things which you knew, and having received the ancestral inheritance of the empire, learning that you have been honored with greater crowns from God, heavenly ones, you may now give fitting thanksgiving to God the King of all, and be filled with greater courage against enemies, having understood in deed that your reign is beloved by God, through the wonders he works in your time. For in the time of the most God-loving and of blessed memory Constantine your father, the saving wood of the cross was found in Jerusalem, divine grace having granted its discovery to him who was piously seeking the hidden holy places. But in your time, O most all-pious master and emperor, who surpasses ancestral piety with a greater reverence toward the divine, the wonders are no longer from earth, but from heaven; and the trophy of victory over death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, I mean the blessed cross, was seen in Jerusalem flashing with beams of light…. – Cyril of Jerusalem, Letter to Constantius
Clearly, Cyril is in love with Constantius. How insane is it to suggest that Constantius surpassed all others in righteousness, and that this is why God granted the sign of the cross to appear in heaven during his reign!
Since, therefore, we, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, having received the paradox of the miracle with our own eyes, have rendered and will render to God the King of all and to the only-begotten Son of God the fitting worship with thanksgiving, having made and being about to make earnest prayers also for your God-loving rule in the holy places, it was necessary not to commit these heavenly visions to silence, but I have hastened at once through these letters to announce the good news to your divinely-inspired piety; so that, having built upon the good foundation of your pre-existing faith the knowledge from the things recently shown from God, you may take up more firmly the hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, and being confident and as usual filled with all courage, as having God himself as your ally, you may most readily bring forth the trophy of the cross, the boast of boasts, bearing the sign shown in heaven; of which heaven, having shown its form to men, boasted the more greatly. This working of wonders, however, most God-loving Emperor, in accordance with the testimonies of the prophets and the words of Christ contained in the holy gospels, has both been accomplished now and will again be more greatly accomplished; for in the gospel according to Matthew, the Savior, bestowing knowledge of future things to his blessed apostles and through them speaking to those after them, most clearly proclaimed beforehand, saying: “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven.” Taking up this divine book of the gospel in your hands, as is your custom, you will find in writing the prophetic testimonies concerning this; which I especially exhort you, master, to attend to with more frequent study, on account of the rest of the sequence written there, of the things foretold by our Savior, which require much observation with reverence, so that you may not suffer any harm from the opposing power. – Cyril of Jerusalem, Letter to Constantius
Cyril claims that the sign of the cross in heaven is some kind of good omen for Constantius’ kingdom. In reality, Jesus’ statement about seeing the sign of the Son of man in heaven is talking about the end of the world. It wasn’t meant to be a sign of God’s pleasure:
Matthew 24:3 – Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Matthew 24:15-22 – “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.”
Matthew 24:29-31 – “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”
Firstly, let’s acknowledge that Cyril believes prophecies can have a DOUBLE fulfillment, once in a lesser form, and then again in the perfect form. In other words, all of the events he’s describing will happen once more in the future (but in a more extreme way). Secondly, Cyril is apparently so ignorant of Scripture that he doesn’t realize this event described by Jesus must come AFTER the abomination of desolation takes his seat in the temple, which all of the church fathers say is the anti-Christ setting himself up in the church! So essentially, Cyril is saying the end of the age has taken place in 351 AD, and it happened about one year after Constantius took the throne and established Arianism.
And he will “sit in the Temple of God,” either in Jerusalem (as some think), or in the Church (as we think is truer)…. — Jerome, Letter 121.11
He says: “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place—let the reader understand” (Matthew 24:15). The holy place is the Church, where the faith and the holy mysteries are handed on; or else a holy man is the temple of God, according to the Apostle saying: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). What the Lord therefore says is this: when you see, He says, the time of persecution threatening, and sacrilegious rulers, so that the Church becomes a shrine of idols and many Christians suffer the ruin of faith, or even Antichrist himself shows himself in the Church, proving himself to be god, “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:16). For Judea is understood as the holy people, as it is written: “Judah became His sanctuary” (Psalm 114:2). For every saint is a true and perfect Jew, one who is circumcised in heart, not in body, as the Apostle says: “We are the circumcision, who serve God in the Spirit” (Philippians 3:3). – Epiphanius Scholasticus, The Interpretation of the Gospels by the Holy Bishop Epiphanius Latinus, section XXXIII. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina Supplementum volume 3:880-881)
Here he discourses concerning the Antichrist, and reveals great mysteries. What is the falling away? He calls him Apostasy, as being about to destroy many, and make them fall away. So that if it were possible, He says, the very Elect should be offended. Matthew 24:24 And he calls him the man of sin. For he shall do numberless mischiefs, and shall cause others to do them. But he calls him the son of perdition, because he is also to be destroyed. But who is he? Is it then Satan? By no means; but some man, that admits his fully working in him. For he is a man. And exalts himself against all that is called God or is worshipped. For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. Setting himself forth, he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs. – John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on 2 Thessalonians
Let Christ be expected, because the Antichrist has assumed power. Let the shepherds shout, because the hired men have fled. Let us lay down our lives for the sheep, because the thieves have entered and the raging lion prowls. Let us advance to martyrdom by these words, because the angel of Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. Let us enter through the door, because nobody comes to the Father except through the Son. Let the false prophets be revealed in their peace, because the approved will be made manifest through heresy and schism. Let this tribulation be endured, a tribulation such as there has never been since the creation of the world; but let it be understood that the days are to be shortened for the sake of God’s elect. – Hilary of Poitiers, Against Constantius, Chapter 1
A faction of these false apostles then compelled me to attend a synod at Béziers, where I proposed a hearing to reveal this heresy. But they were afraid that it might become public knowledge and so refused to hear any of the issues I had raised, believing that they would be able to feign innocence before Christ if they wilfully ignored what they would later knowingly do. Kept in exile ever since then, I have resolved neither to desert the confession of Christ nor to reject any honest and commendable method of achieving unity. Finally, I have neither written nor uttered any reproach against these present times, nor anything defamatory and appropriate to their impiety against that body which was then claiming to be the church of Christ, but is now a synagogue of the Antichrist. During this time I have not considered it an offence for anyone to speak with them or attend the house of prayer (although the fellowship of communion has been withdrawn) or hope for circumstances conducive to peace, until we might prepare forgiveness of error and a return from the Antichrist to Christ through repentance. – Hilary of Poitiers, Against Constantius, Chapter 2
But now we are fighting against a deceptive persecutor, a flattering enemy, Constantius the Antichrist, who does not strike the back, but rather caresses the belly; does not proscribe people to life but rather enriches them to death; does not drive them to freedom in prison, but rather burdens them to slavery within the palace: instead of torturing flanks, he invades the heart; instead of cutting off the head with a sword, he destroys the soul with gold; instead of openly threatening flames, he secretly kindles hell. He does not fight to avoid defeat, but rather fawns in order to dominate; he confesses Christ so that he might deny him, he promotes unity to prevent peace, he suppresses heresies to eliminate Christians, he rewards priests to preclude bishops, he constructs buildings for the Church to demolish its faith. He proclaims you in words and in speech, but he does absolutely everything to prevent you being believed to be God, as the Father is. – Hilary of Poitiers, Against Constantius, Chapter 5
[Writing to Constantius:] Is it right that Solomon should say: Of the king’s frown beware, as of lion roaring (Proverbs 19:12); however your lion’s roars can’t have any strength against us. Why? Because you’re the forerunner of the Antichrist and we’re the soldiers of Christ! Why? Because you don’t have the power, persecutor of our religion, to conquer the men of God. – Lucifer of Cagliari, Concerning Athanasius, Book 1, chapter 27[Writing to Constantius:] Since you’ve adopted the Antichrist in place of Christ, since in fact he ‘was, and there was a time when he was not’, how bold do you have to be to oppose Christians, unless it’s like the way in which adulterous women oppose those who are chaste? You dare to try and dominate God’s people, to suppress God’s Church by your imperial power, to make the Church’s divine majesty fearful of your empty tyranny; indeed you’ve done this because you’re ignorant of the passage of Scripture which has been written about you tyrants: No skill had Egyptian hearts to understand them. They had thought to exercise barbarous tyranny over a nation consecrated to thee. And now they lay, shut close under their own roofs, darkness their dungeon, their sentence a long-drawn night, exiled from the gifts of thy eternal Providence (Wisdom of Solomon 17:1–2) So you’re one of the persecutors of God’s people, about whom you read By darkness, like all his fellows, held in thrall (Wisdom of Solomon 17:17 [16 LXX]) and again A fitting punishment it was for the Egyptians, this loss of light; fitting that they should be imprisoned in darkness, who had kept their own sons in prison; thy own sons, thought whom that law, which is light unfailing, was to be given to the world. (Wisdom of Solomon 18:4) Or do you deny that you’ve got the high priests of God behind bars? Why are you detaining us? Is it in case we preach clearly the truth to God’s people? Why do you keep us in prison? Why do you send us into exile, unless you’re afraid of us, unless we show up you Arian wolves as rapacious dogs, the Antichrists of our time, because of what’s revealed in Sacred Scripture? For Sacred Scripture proves on the basis of your actions that you’re not God’s servants but clearly the Devil’s! – Lucifer of Cagliari, Concerning Athanasius, Book 1, chapter 34
Only pray, I beseech you, that the Lord may not deliver us to the enemies of the Cross of Christ, but that He will keep His Churches, until the time of that peace which the just Judge Himself knows when He will bestow. For He will bestow it. He will not always abandon us. As He limited seventy years for the period of captivity for the Israelites in punishment for their sins, so peradventure the Mighty One, after giving us up for some appointed time, will recall us once again, and will restore us to the peace of the beginning—unless indeed the apostasy is now nigh at hand, and the events that have lately happened are the beginnings of the approach of Antichrist. If this be so, pray that the good Lord will either take away our afflictions, or preserve us through our afflictions unvanquished. – Basil of Caesarea, Letter 264
Here Cyril is fawning over Constantius, telling him that the sign of the Son of man has appeared in heaven as if that were a sign of God’s FAVOR on the church, while the whole rest of the church calls Constantius the anti-Christ and thinks the end of the world is at hand!
This may be more meaningful than Cyril realizes. One year before the cross was seen, Constantius became the sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire, Constantius imposed his pro-Arian policies on the Western provinces. He aggressively exiled orthodox bishops who resisted, such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Pope Liberius. Constantius made Arianism the official state-sponsored religion, prompting all Nicene bishops to either renounce the orthodox faith or else be deposed and exiled. At this time, all true Christians had to leave the institutional church to be saved. They “fled to the mountains,” you might say. And it all happened in the year 351.
So Cyril is essentially saying the end of the world happened in 351 AD, and that God made a sign in heaven to prove it was a fulfillment of prophecy.
Constantine’s Cross in the Sky:
Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle. – Eusebius, Life of Constantine, book 1, chapter 28
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies. – Eusebius, Life of Constantine, book 1, chapter 29
At dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing. – Eusebius, Life of Constantine, book 1, chapter 30
Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour’s name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the embroidered banner. The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies. – Eusebius, Life of Constantine, book 1, chapter 31
And now a civil war broke out between Constantine and Maxentius. Although Maxentius kept himself within Rome, because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of it he should perish, yet he conducted the military operations by able generals. In forces he exceeded his adversary; for he had not only his father’s army, which deserted from Severus, but also his own, which he had lately drawn together out of Mauritania and Italy. They fought, and the troops of Maxentius prevailed. At length Constantine, with steady courage and a mind prepared for every event, led his whole forces to the neighbourhood of Rome, and encamped them opposite to the Milvian bridge. The anniversary of the reign of Maxentius approached, that is, the sixth of the kalends of November, and the fifth year of his reign was drawing to an end. Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter Χ, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ. Having this sign (ΧΡ), his troops stood to arms. The enemies advanced, but without their emperor, and they crossed the bridge. The armies met, and fought with the utmost exertions of valour, and firmly maintained their ground. – Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, Chapter 44
Constantine told the Christians around him, such as Eusebius and Lactantius, that God had commanded him to conquer his enemies in the sign of the cross. At least, Eusebius liked to think this symbol was a cross, even though Lactantius’ account is 30 years earlier and explicitly says it was the two letters “Chi” and “Rho” that Constantine supposedly saw and put on all of his shields and standards. This symbol is not a Christian symbol at all, and no one in history ever claimed it was before Constantine. If the Christians had been less gullible, they would have replied to Constantine, “That is not a Christian symbol of ours. No one in history has handed this down to us. We don’t recognize it.” We can clearly see the illustrations of the divine symbol he put on his own coins and shields, and there’s no cross. Only the Chi-Rho.
But was this the first time in history that the Chi-Rho (XP) symbol had ever been used? No. We can find in many ancient coins, even as far back as Ptolemy III, the Chi-Rho symbol being associated with the Greek goddess Fortuna, who is always seen alongside a cornucopia (symbolizing prosperity), a wheel, or a ship’s rudder (symbolizing Fortune’s guidance and control of destiny).
“… [The] goddess who admits by her unsteady wheel her own fickleness; she always has its apex beneath her swaying foot.” – Ovid, Ex Ponto, iv, epistle 3
The letters “Chi” and “Rho” were abbreviations for “good fortune” (chrestos tyche). The “good” part of “good fortune” was abbreviated as the first too letters of the Greek word “chrestos.” The C (which is written as an X) and the R (which is written as a P), making XP, the Chi-Rho. This was not a reference to Christ originally. The sign of the Chi-Rho had already been a symbol of “good fortune” to the Greeks for at least 600 years by the time Constantine made use of it.
Among all who share your majesty, I aver you have this distinction, Constantine, that you were (born) an Emperor, and so great is the nobility of your lineage that the attainment of imperial power has added nothing to your honor, nor can Fortune claim credit for your divinity, which is rightfully yours without campaigning and canvassing. – Anonymous, Oration VI, An Oration Delivered before the Emperor Constantine in Trier, ca. ad 310, chapter 2.5
No chance agreement of men, nor some unexpected consequence of favor, made you Emperor: it is through your birth that you merited the Empire. Indeed this seems to me to be the first and greatest gift of the immortal gods, to enter upon life instantly blessed by Fortune, and to inherit as a family possession what others obtain with difficulty only as the result of the labors of a whole lifetime. For although it is a great and wonderful good fortune to climb to that pinnacle of majesty after serving one’s time in the ranks and passing through all the grades of the military hierarchy, and to attain such great measure of power solely by relying on foundations of valor—which indeed you, too, have accomplished, as far as your age has allowed—and although Fortune has placed you above all checks to the acquisition of glory, you wished to advance by serving as a soldier, and by confronting the dangers of war and by engaging the enemy even in single combat you have made yourself more notable among the nations, since you cannot become more noble; great, I repeat, as it is to start on one’s own and to attain the greatest heights, yet it is one thing to struggle over difficult ground and to make for the mountain peaks from the plain, another to occupy the pinnacle of fortune supported by the sublimity of one’s birth, and to possess supreme power rather than aspiring to it. – Anonymous, Oration VI, An Oration Delivered before the Emperor Constantine in Trier, ca. ad 310, chapter 3.1
But why should I flatter only your private feelings, since that was the opinion of all the gods and indeed it has been long since authoritatively recorded, although at that time it was confirmed by the full conclave? – Anonymous, An Oration Delivered before the Emperor Constantine in Trier, ca. ad 310, chapter 4.4
For on the day after that news had been received and you had undertaken the labor of double stages on your journey, you learnt that all the waves had subsided, and that the all-pervading calm which you had left behind had been restored. Fortune herself so ordered this matter that the happy outcome of your affairs prompted you to convey to the immortal gods what you had vowed at the very spot where you had turned aside toward the most beautiful temple in the whole world, or rather, to the deity made manifest, as you saw. For you saw, I believe, O Constantine, your Apollo, accompanied by Victory, offering you laurel wreaths, each one of which carries a portent of thirty years. For this is the number of human ages which are owed to you without fail—beyond the old age of a Nestor. And—no w why do I say ” I believe”?—you saw, and recognized yourself in the likeness of him to who m the divine songs of the bards had prophesied that rule over the whole world was due. And this I think has now happened , since you are, O Emperor, like he, youthful, joyful, a bringer of health an d very handsome. Rightly, therefore, have you honored those most venerable shrines with such great treasures that they do not miss their old ones, any longer.’ Now may all the temples be seen to beckon you to them, and particularly our Apollo, whose boiling waters punish perjuries—which ought to be especially hateful to you. – Anonymous, Oration VI, An Oration Delivered before the Emperor Constantine in Trier, ca. 310 AD, chapter 21.3
Five years’ arrears [of taxes] you have waived for us! O lustrum happier than all lustral O lustrum which fittingly has matched the duration of your reign!” Thus it is for us above all that the deathless gods have created you Emperor, for each one of us dates his good fortune from the moment when you began to rule. – Anonymous, Oration V. SPEECH OF THANKS TO CONSTANTINE, ca. July 311, chapter 13.1
This is an anonymous oration given to Constantine shortly after the battle of the Milvian Bridge. No mention is made of Constantine’s supposed divine vision, nor of the cross symbol or chi-rho symbol being put on the shields and standards of the army. Instead, Constantine’s success is credited to the Goddess Fortuna:
And not even then, when he [Maxentius] had received information of so many conflicts lost by his men, did he attempt to go to meet you to employ the boundary of the Poor the Apennine Mountains for resistance, but he suppressed letters testifying to his own disasters. Meanwhile even in public he kept wishing that an advance would be made all the way to the gates. He did not realize that the City’s majesty, which had once tempted advancing armies, had gone over to support you now that it was disgraced by his crimes and driven from its seat, and that me n who m so many glorious victories, over and above your generosity and their oath of allegiance, had dedicated to you could not be corrupted by any rewards. What soldier, who had so often fought successfully under your command and auspices, would sell his wounds to that fellow, or concede the outcome of a war nearly won? But as you had formed this impression of the eagerness inspiring the whole army, without any of indecision’s delay you flew along in hasty march where the shortest road is, through the Veneti, and displayed for Rome then so eager for you that rapidity in action which was Scipio’s and Caesar’s. This is the faith of an Emperor invincible and trusting in the spirits of his men, not to waver in doubt nor to prolong a war, but to consider each ensuing opportunity for battle an opportunity for victory. Your situation was not that of Quintus Maximus with victorious Hannibal, to seek out a place and an opportunity after calamities, but it was the right place and time for you to press your successes, to add victory to victory, and to come to the City’s assistance as soon as possible. It is the mark of a wise commander to take account of a critical situation by delaying, but under favorable conditions not to neglect Fortune. – Anonymous, Oration XII, PANEGYRIC OF CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS, ca. 312 AD, chapter 15.6
He makes this ambiguous statement that Constantine “did not neglect Fortune.” How did he not neglect Fortune? Furthermore, Constantine continues to accept praise as a deity.
The houses themselves, I hear, seemed to move and the rooftops seemed to rise higher, wherever the chariot conveyed your deity with slow effort: so numerous a throng of the people, so numerous an entourage of senators carried you along and at the same time detained you. Those who stood at a distance pronounced fortunate those who had a closer look at you; those whom you passed by repented of the place which they had occupied. – Anonymous, Oration XII, PANEGYRIC OF CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS, ca. 312 AD, chapter 19.1
You alone, Constantine, tirelessly follow one war with another, heap one victory upon another. As if the past is blotted out if you cease, you think you have not conquered unless you are conquering. The fickle and flighty nation of savages’ broke its promise, and having chosen leaders of the invasion for their strength and daring, was reported to be threatening the Rhine. You were instantly there to meet them and by your presence you frightened them from daring the crossing. And then you appeared to have achieved the opposite of what you prayed for, because if the invasion were prevented there would be no source of victory; but you employed the unexpected plan of departing with a pretended announcement of a greater disturbance on the border of Upper Germany, you offered their dull and savage intellects an opportunity to come into our territory, and left behind in concealment generals who would attack them when they least expected it. When they had crossed over, Fortune attended your plan. With the whole bed of the Rhine filled with ships you descended and devastated their lands and mourning and sorrowful homes, and you inflicted destruction and desolation so extensive on the perjured nation that in time to come it will possess scarcely any name. – Anonymous, Oration XII, PANEGYRIC OF CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS, ca. 312 AD, chapter 22.2
How easy would it have been for Constantine to tell the Christians that he had recently begun to use their symbol to win battles, when in reality he had only just begun to use it a year and a half prior because of a vision of “good fortune” delivered by Apollo? Christians were not very familiar with war, after all (as Lactantius himself says). It’s not likely they knew of every standard and shield decoration commonly used by the Romans.
Constantine claimed to be visited by the Greek goddess Fortune and then used the sign for Good Fortune. This man made use of a symbol that was already in use and tricked Christians into thinking it stood for Christ. It was already common knowledge that there was some similarity between the word chrestians and Christians. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and other church fathers do word-play when writing letters to the emperors, saying, “When you hate Chrestians, you convict yourselves of hating what is good!”
And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. – Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 4
Goodness is of less value than hatred of Christians. Well now, if there is this dislike of the name, what blame can you attach to names? What accusation can you bring against mere designations, save that something in the word sounds either barbarous, or unlucky, or scurrilous, or unchaste? But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you Chrestianus (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name. – Tertullian, The Apology, chapter 3
Furthermore, plenty of historians already admit this fact, that the abbreviation for “Chrestian” can be dated back before Christ. One historian says:
Constantine’s story needed to be told from many different perspectives and to reflect the needs of different audiences, especially those who would have noticed some novel behaviors such as the appearance of the chi–rho symbol (symbolizing either good luck, or the name of Christ, since the letters are the first two both of the Greek word chrestos and of Christos) that he seems to have ordered his men to place on their shields before the battle of the Milvian Bridge…. – David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395, page 355
Another historian writes:
The Chi-Rho was, previously, almost unknown as a Christian emblem: no pre-Constantinian uses of the letters in such a role, or at most very few, have been identified. Certainly, the Chi-Rho had appeared, but in quite a different and non-Christian context, as pagan papyri indicate. For the men who were writing or reading these papyri employed the sign to mark a valuable or useful passage, Chi-Rho standing for the Greek chreston, good. The symbol also bore some resemblance to the mystic Egyptian ankh, and others might have noted or assumed a connection with the worship of the Sun or Apollo or Mithras (though the theory of the development of the Christogram [Chi-Rho] from a pagan star does not seem admissible), or it might just have been regarded as a good-luck sign. Subsequently, of course, it became a Christian symbol, but how and when this transfer or transformation occurred is a matter for conjecture. It seems reasonable to suppose that it was prompted by Constantine himself or by his advisers, who were able to suggest that this not unfamiliar symbol could serve as an abbreviation for Christ, so that within a short time that is how it was, exclusively, considered. In other words, the Chi-Rho had a double meaning, one for pagans and one for Christians. Double meanings were nothing new for Constantine, who had been brought up (at Diocletian’s court) in an atmosphere that required dissimulation. The Chi-Rho may have appeared again in his statue at Constantinople, which was not only adapted from a representation of Apollo but possessed the radiate crown of the Sun-god (so familiar from the imperial coinage) and faced the Rising Sun. That is to say, the Christogram could be reverenced by both pagans and Christians: an illustration of Constantine’s desire to play to both audiences. – Michael Grant, Constantine (1993), pages 142-143
One Catholic website says:
The Chi-Rho symbol is a superimposition of the first two letters (XP) of the Greek word for Christ, ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. One of the most common symbols in Christian art is the Chi-Rho. It is created by superimposing the first two letters (XP) of the Greek word for Christ, ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ. The monogram, also called a “christogram,” primarily represents Jesus Christ, but is also considered to be a common representation of the crucifixion scene. It is similar in style to the Tau-Rho (T and P superimposed), yet with a very distinct origin. The symbol, however, seems to be pre-Christian in origin. Some sources claim that, prior to Christianity, the symbol may have been used by scribes to abbreviate the word chrēstos (“good” or, perhaps in a more accurate translation, “useful”), but it wasn’t until Constantine that it received a much deeper meaning.
One archaeological website specializing in ancient coinage had this to say about the Chi-Rho symbol:
The Chi-Rho symbol has pre-Christian origins and is believed to have been revered by the pagan Greeks as representative of good fortune. Pagan Greek scribes used the symbol in the margin to mark passages they considered especially significant or relevant, with the letters Chi and Rho denoting ‘chreston’ that means ‘good’. The sign has also been found on the coins of Ptolemy III (246-222 BCE).
Constantine may have been aware of this. It was almost too easy for him to simply appropriate an old symbol and attach it to Christ.
If Jesus really wanted Constantine to openly profess faith in him by conquering in His name, why wouldn’t he just have Constantine put a cross on his shields and standards? Why would it be this XP, which has never been associated with Christianity, and on the contrary has always been associated with the goddess of Fortune, who happens to be Constantine’s patron God? Doesn’t that make things a little more vague? A big cross on all of his shields would have made it VERY obvious that he was confessing Christ. But no clear confession is made by Constantine. He’s playing both sides here. And what a surprise, that a politician would be a schemer who tries to get everyone on his good side without having true allegiance to anyone! Never in the history of the world has a politician ever done such a thing.
Eusebius knew Constantine never made any symbol of a cross. That’s why he makes this pathetic attempt at convincing everyone that the standards themselves bore the symbol of the cross. He doesn’t bother mentioning the shields having the sign of the cross, since he knows that never happened. So he does this desperate thing where he says, “Oh, but he put the CHI RHO right above the STANDARD, so that you could see both the cross and Jesus’ initials! Yeah, the standard itself bears the sign of the cross, since it’s cross-shapes on top.”
Eusebius, that is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Justin Martyr already pointed out that the cross can be found all over the place, on ship masts and ploughs and the standards of kings. By your logic, EVERY emperor has ALWAYS conquered in the sign of the cross!
And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, “The breath before our face is the Lord Christ.” And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called “vexilla” [banners] and trophies, with which all your state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly. And with this form you consecrate the images of your emperors when they die, and you name them gods by inscriptions. – Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 55
Constantine did NOT conquer in the sign of the cross anymore than they did, but only in the sign of the Chi-Rho, a symbol of good luck attached to the goddess of Fortune, whom he claimed to have met two years before the battle and to have received a special prophecy of success in battle from.
Constantine was still a pagan:
In about 335, Constantine had a temple built in honor of himself and his family lineage. He also continued the murderous gladiatorial shows, denounced by the whole church as the ultimate wickedness.
Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus Maximus, conqueror of the Germans, Sarmatians, and Goths, victor, triumphant Augustus, and Flavius Constantinus, and Flavius Julius Constantius, and Flavius Constans.
Indeed, we embrace in our vigilant care and thought all things that safeguard the society of the human race, but the greatest work of our provisions is that all cities, which are distinguished by the form and appearance of provinces and regions, should not only retain their former dignity but also be advanced to a better state by the gift of our beneficence. Since, therefore, you asserted that you are so connected to Tuscia that by the institution of ancient custom, priests are created by you and from the aforementioned [places] at each annual turn, who should present theatrical games and gladiatorial shows at the city of Vulsinii in Tuscia—but, on account of the rugged mountains and the difficulties of the wooded routes, you requested at great expense that, with a remedy granted, it should not be necessary for your priest to proceed to Vulsinii for the celebration of the shows—namely, that we should give the name from our cognomen to the city that now has the name Hispellum, which you mention is adjacent and continuous with the Flaminian Way, in which a temple of the Flavian gens should arise with magnificent workmanship, to be sure, in accordance with the grandeur of its naming, and that there the priest, whom Umbria would appoint year by year, should present the spectacle of both theatrical games and gladiatorial shows, while the custom throughout Tuscia remains that the priest created from there should frequent the shows of the aforesaid exhibitions at Vulsinii as was customary—to this petition and your desire our assent has readily been given. For we have granted to the city of Hispellum an eternal title and a name to be venerated from our appellation, namely that henceforth the aforesaid city shall be called Flavia Constans, in whose bosom we also wish the temple of the Flavian gens—that is, of our family—to be completed with magnificent workmanship, as you desire, with this stipulation written down: that the temple dedicated in our name shall not be defiled by the fraudulent practices of any contagious superstition.
Consequently, we have also given you permission for the shows to be exhibited in the aforesaid city, namely that, as has been said, the solemn celebration of the shows at Vulsinii also should not fail at the appointed times, where the aforementioned festivity is to be presented to priests created from Tuscia. For in this way, neither will it seem that much has been detracted from ancient institutions, and you, who on account of the aforesaid reasons have presented yourselves as suppliants to us, will rejoice that the things which you requested at great expense have been granted.
When Constantine officially inaugurated Constantinople as the “New Rome” in 330 CE, he incorporated a Temple of Tyche (Fortune) into the urban landscape of his explicitly Christian city. He even dedicated a statue of Fortuna Romana inside. On his official state currency, Constantine also proudly displayed himself standing side-by-side with his new city’s patron goddess, Fortuna.
Constantine continued to mint coins featuring himself on one side and his “genius” (or “divine spirit”) on the other side. For centuries, Roman emperors claimed to be divine and required that their citizens bow to their images and offer incense to them, which Christians recognized to be a complete denial of the faith. It wasn’t until the Roman emperor Theodosius came along that the worship of imperial images was abolished. Constantine allowed pagans to keep worshiping his images, and continued to call himself a god.
Erected in Rome to commemorate his victory at the Milvian Bridge (completing construction in 315), the Arch of Constantine notably lacks explicit Christian symbols (such as the cross, an image of Jesus, or any reference to Christianity). Instead, it features reliefs dedicated to pagan deities like the Apollo, Hercules, and Victory. Constantine clearly gave no credit to the Christian God for victory.
Ever since Constantine heard that famous panegyric in 310 comparing him to Apollo, even stressing his physical resemblance to all the statues of Apollo, Constantine instructed sculptors to make images that made him look like the Roman of the sun, Apollo, and even referred to himself as “Sol Invictus” – the sun god. In fact, there’s a funny story in history involving the most famous statue ever made by Constantine – The Colossus – which survives only in gigantic severed pieces: a head, hand, and food. The pedestal holding up the foot has a Latin inscription underneath it which reads:
VRBANO VIII P. O. M. PEDEM ET MANVM EX APOLLINIS COLOSSO XXX CVBITORVM ALTITVDINIS AB APOLLINEA PONTI VRBE ROMAM ADDVCTO DIV HVMI NEGLECTO ANTIQVAE MAGNIFICENTIAE ARGVMENTVM HONORIFICENTIVS HIC COLLOCARVNT MICHAELANGELVS THEDALLINVS MAXIMVS DE MAXIMIS IO. BAPTISTA GINVS CONSS. BERNARDVS CINCIVS CAP. REG. PRIOR ANNO DOMINI M·DC·XXXVI
To Urban VIII, Supreme Pontiff: The foot and hand from the Colossus of Apollo—30 cubits in height, brought to Rome from the city of Apollonia Pontica—long neglected on the ground, as evidence of ancient magnificence, were here set up in a place of higher honor by: Michelangelo Tedallini, Massimo de’ Massimi, Giovanni Battista Gini (Conservators), Bernardo Cinci (Prior of the Caporioni). In the year of the Lord 1636.
The Latin inscription carved onto the pedestal was added in 1636 during the pontificate of Pope Urban VIII. When these marble fragments were mounted in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori in the 17th century, early antiquarians mistakenly attributed them to a famous colossal statue of Apollo brought to Rome by Lucullus in the 1st century BC (hence the reference to Apollo and Apollonia Pontica on the pedestal), and this was because all of Constantine’s images were deliberately made to look like Apollo! It was only through later archaeological study that the fragments were correctly identified as belonging to the 4th-century AD Colossus of Constantine.
Even when Constantine made a public monument that featured him holding a cross (which may have actually been a chi-rho, but Eusebius calls it a cross), he inscribed a vague epitaph, never explicitly using Jesus’ name or mentioning Christianity. It read:
“Through this sign of salvation, which is the true symbol of goodness, I rescued your city and freed it from the tyrant’s yoke, and through my act of liberation I restored the Senate and People of Rome to their ancient renown and splendour.”
What a strange thing to say about the cross – or rather, the chi-rho symbol – that it’s the “symbol of goodness.” Say, was the chi-rho ever associated with “goodness?” Why, it was! And that would have been well-known to the Roman populace. Remember when Justin Martyr and Tertullian said “Chrestos” means “good” or “excellent?”
It should be noted that Eusebius was translating from a Latin inscription, so it would have been impossible to use the Greek word “chrestos” when he said it’s “the symbol of GOODNESS.” We also can’t verify if it really was a chi-rho or a cross because the scepter held by the statue is now completely destroyed and lost to time.
Here is the Greek text of this inscription as given by Eusebius: τῷ σωτηριώδει σημείῳ, τῷ ἀληθεῖ ἐλέγχῳ τῆς ἀνδρείας τὴν πόλιν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ ζυγοῦ τοῦ τυράννου διασωθεῖσαν ἠλευθέρωσα, ἔτι μὴν καὶ τὴν σύγκλητον καὶ τὸν δῆμον Ῥωμαίων τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ ἐπιφανείᾳ καὶ λαμπρότητι ἐλευθερώσας ἀποκατέστησα.
The Roman usurper Procopius (who revolted against the Emperor Valens from 365 to 366 CE) is generally considered by historians to have been a pagan, and yet he minted coins showing two insignias – one that looks like a wheel, and another that resembles the chi-rho. Why would he do this?
Procopius was a maternal relative of the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate (who had tried to restore traditional Roman religion). When Procopius seized power in Constantinople, he explicitly styled himself as Julian’s political heir, even parading around in Julian’s purple cloak and wearing a traditional philosopher’s beard as a symbol of mourning and solidarity with Julian’s religious views.
While some of his coinage featured ambiguous military standards (like a labarum), modern historical consensus views his rebellion as drawing strong support from traditional pagan networks who were discontented with the orthodox or Arian Christian policies of the reigning Valentinian dynasty. Clearly, he didn’t see the chi-rho as contradicting his own personal religion. Perhaps he even hoped it would bring him “good luck” as it had for Constantine!
A Heretic and Persecutor of the Church:
Constantine ordered Athanasius to have communion with Arius, after reversing his decision against the Arians, and when Athanasius refused, Constantine exiled him. Just think, a man who isn’t allowed to have the Eucharist himself is commanding a bishop of the church to administer it to someone else – and to the worst heretic, no less!
The Cross Found by Helena
The Cathodox frequently refer to crosses as “images.” They say, “The cross we draw isn’t the original cross, but only a picture of the original cross.” Furthermore, they point out that the post-Nicene church believed it was lawful to kiss “images” of the cross and even bow to it. At the second council of Nicaea, they used this fact to justify bowing to images of Christ:
But what they failed to mention is that the worship of crosses actually DID start with worship of the ACTUAL cross of Christ (or at least, of what they THOUGHT was the original cross), not just an image of it. Before the mid 300s, Christians explicitly told pagans that they DIDN’T bow to the cross!
The heretical principle which eventually became the justification for bowing to images was deviously introduced into the church after Constantine’s mother Helena supposedly found a cross, which everyone believed to be the very one Jesus died on. Eusebius, writing between 337-339 AD, makes no mention of this event ever taking place when Helena visited Golgotha in 326 AD, but almost 70 years later (403 AD), Rufinus is the earliest writer to mention that Helena actually found the original cross of Jesus at the site of Golgotha, and that miracles were performed through it, and that pieces of it were sent to all the churches throughout the whole world. That’s a pretty important detail for Eusebius to leave out, especially since the whole point of his section on Helena was to enumerate all of her greatest accomplishments! The lack of any mention made by Eusebius about this historic event makes the supposed discovery of the “true cross” highly suspect. After all, Eusebius was a massive fan of both Constantine and his mother, and he didn’t fail to mention that Constantine removed the pagan temple from the site of Christ’s crucifixion and built a church on it instead. How he forget to include this story?
For she, having resolved to discharge the duties of pious devotion to the God, the King of kings, and feeling it incumbent on her to render thanksgivings with prayers on behalf both of her own son, now so mighty an emperor, and of his sons, her own grandchildren, the divinely favored Cæsars, though now advanced in years, yet gifted with no common degree of wisdom, had hastened with youthful alacrity to survey this venerable land; and at the same time to visit the eastern provinces, cities, and people, with a truly imperial solicitude. As soon, then, as she had rendered due reverence to the ground which the Saviour’s feet had trodden, according to the prophetic word which says Let us worship at the place whereon his feet have stood, she immediately bequeathed the fruit of her piety to future generations. For without delay she dedicated two churches to the God whom she adored, one at the grotto which had been the scene of the Saviour’s birth; the other on the mount of his ascension. For he who was God with us had submitted to be born even in a cave of the earth, and the place of his nativity was called Bethlehem by the Hebrews. – Eusebius, Life of Constantine, book 3, chapters 42-43
There is one other writing that which makes mention of the cross found at Jerusalem, later than Eusebius, but earlier than Rufinus, and it comes from none other than Cyril of Jerusalem himself, in his letter to Constantius in 351! However, he makes no mention of Helena finding the cross either, but rather credits Constantine alone for finding it:
Learning that you have been honored with greater crowns from God, heavenly ones, you may now give fitting thanksgiving to God the King of all, and be filled with greater courage against enemies, having understood in deed that your reign is beloved by God, through the wonders he works in your time. For in the time of the most God-loving and of blessed memory Constantine your father, the saving wood of the cross was found in Jerusalem, divine grace having granted its discovery to him who was piously seeking the hidden holy places. But in your time, O most all-pious master and emperor, who surpasses ancestral piety with a greater reverence toward the divine, the wonders are no longer from earth, but from heaven; and the trophy of victory over death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, I mean the blessed cross, was seen in Jerusalem flashing with beams of light. – Cyril of Jerusalem, Letter to Constantius
In this earliest account of the cross being found, no mention is made of Helena, but instead all of the credit for finding the cross is given to Constantine! There is an obvious development going on here, and it originates in Jerusalem, with this accursed pretend-bishop, aligned with the precursor of the anti-Christ. The Arian apostate, Cyril of Jerusalem, allowed his congregation to take turns bowing before the cross and kissing it in a long procession that lasted for hours. This practice is recorded by a woman who went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem between 381 and 384 (Cyril was bishop between 350 and 386).
Then a chair is placed for the bishop in Golgotha behind the Cross, which is now standing; the bishop duly takes his seat in the chair, and a table covered with a linen cloth is placed before him; the deacons stand round the table, and a silver-gilt casket is brought in which is the holy wood of the Cross. The casket is opened and (the wood) is taken out, and both the wood of the Cross and the title are placed upon the table. Now, when it has been put upon the table, the bishop, as he sits, holds the extremities of the sacred wood firmly in his hands, while the deacons who stand around guard it. It is guarded thus because the custom is that the people, both faithful and catechumens, come one by one and, bowing down at the table, kiss the sacred wood and pass through. And because, I know not when, some one is said to have bitten off and stolen a portion of the sacred wood, it is thus guarded by the deacons who stand around, lest any one approaching should venture to do so again. And as all the people pass by one by one, all bowing themselves, they touch the Cross and the title, first with their foreheads and then with their eyes; then they kiss the Cross and pass through, but none lays his hand upon it to touch it. When they have kissed the Cross and have passed through, a deacon stands holding the ring of Solomon and the horn from which the kings were anointed; they kiss the horn also and gaze at the ring…. – Egeria, Itinerarium Egeriae (The Pilgrimage of Egeria, c. 381–384)
Because of their reverence for this cross, the post-Nicene church began its gradual decline toward worshiping images. John Chrysostom himself supported this practice because he believed it had had received its ratification from God when Helena found it:
For this reason, O beloved, I seek and desire to bring you to the cross, and to praise it worthily; and I fear, being unworthy; for my flesh trembles, and my tongue is numb, and my lips are sealed, and my reason within protests to be silent. How then shall I, a lowly man, be able to speak worthily about the power of the precious and life-giving cross? But I will speak by the grace of God in part, as much as I understand; for not even angels are able to praise its power worthily. For angels adore (προσκυνοῦσιν) this visible sign of the cross, not because of the form (εἶδος) of the wood, but because of Christ, who was willingly crucified on it in the flesh. – John Chrysostom, On the exaltation of the venerable cross
No church father taught this practice of worshiping the cross before Cyril of Jerusalem, and multiple explicitly condemned it. Not one bishop ever named a church father in history who passed on this tradition of bowing to the cross or offering it incense, and even when they tried to use Scripture to justify it, they failed to provide any convincing excerpts (note: scholars thing this sermon might not be from Chrysostom, but from another writer in the later 5th century):
And that the cross of Christ and its type (τύπος) are venerable (σεβάσμιος) and to be worshipped (προσκυνητὸς), this too the prophets teach: For David saying: You have given a sign to those who fear you, to flee from the face of the bow; and again: Show me a sign for good, and let those who hate me see it, and be ashamed. And God also says through Ezekiel the prophet: Give the sign upon the foreheads of those who groan and are in pain over all the iniquities; and go through, and strike, and do not pity; wipe out the elder and the young man, and women and nursing infants; but do not come near those who have my sign. And Solomon says, Bless the wood, through which righteousness comes. And Isaiah, whence it was, and what sort of woods of the cross, says: With cypress and pine and cedar, to glorify the holy place together. And Moses, casting a piece of wood into Marah, sweetened the bitter waters, as a type of the cross of Christ who sweetened the world from the bitterness of the demons. And the rod of Moses which split the rock was a type of the cross of Christ, who split the hearts of men, and cast the grace of the Holy Spirit into them. – Pseudo John Chrysostom, On the Veneration of the Precious Cross (In venerabilem crucem sermo, CPG 4525)
For the record, the writer of this homily DOES bash the idea of making crosses out of matter, but recommends using the immaterial sign of the cross exclusively:
For indeed the cross of the Lord is more brilliant and more august than any royal crown; and what am I saying, a royal crown? Brighter than the rays of the sun themselves. And in the old days, the thing was a condemnation of a wicked life and of corrupt deeds; but now it is a symbol of a divine gift, a sign of spiritual nobility, an inviolable treasure, an inalienable gift, a cause of sanctification. This we set forth both on our bed and on our table, and everywhere we may be. For just as many of the soldiers neither take their breakfast nor sleep without their weapons; so also now let us hang it on the bed instead of a sword, let us draw it on the doors instead of a bar, let us surround the whole house with it instead of a wall; let us fence in with this the things within and the things without. For this has destroyed death, opened the heavens, cleansed the earth, led our nature up to the royal throne, abolished the tyranny of the devil. This form is twofold: the one made of matter, either of gold or of pearls or of precious stones, which is also often taken away by barbarians or thieves; the other is immaterial; for its substance is not from matter, but its essence is from faith, its material from the disposition of the one who makes it. This watches over those who are sleeping, this keeps safe those who are awake, this rescues those who are in danger; through this war is destroyed, and peace is established, Therefore I praise the long-suffering and patient mystery of your economy concerning me, O Lord; I venerate your precious and life-giving cross, O Master; I embrace the sufferings, I kiss the nails, and I salute the piercings of the limbs; I greatly esteem both the reed and the lance and the sponge; like a royal diadem, I put on the crown of thorns, and like with translucent stones, I adorn myself with the spittings, like with a most brilliant ornament I take pride in the blows. – Pseudo John Chrysostom, On the Veneration of the Precious Cross (In venerabilem crucem sermo, CPG 4525)
This precious and venerable wood, honored by all, is adored (προσκυνεῖται); Greeks and barbarians, Macedonians and Thessalians, Paeonians and Illyrians, Athenians and Argives and Laconians, Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, both Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, Cretans and Arabs, Indians and Ethiopians, and Homerites, and all the rest of the nations, as many as the sun looks upon, having left their own deceit, being signed with the cross, adore (προσκυνοῦσι), fleeing the intricate chains of the devil. – John Chrysostom, On the Veneration of the Holy Cross
While one could take Chrysostom’s words as a figurative expression rather than a literal prostration before a cross, not everyone did, as we can see from the example of Cyril holding an actual religious procession in his church which consisted of bowing to the cross and kissing it. For whatever reason, many post-Nicene fathers simultaneously rejected the idea of Christians bowing to painted images while allowing Christians to bow toward the symbol of the cross. They saw a wide difference between the two things, no doubt because the cross isn’t an image of a living creature, which illustrates there was a gradual degradation of worship in the church.
One thing is for certain: If John Chrysostom forbade the use of incense in liturgy, he most certainly would have condemned anyone who made offerings of incense to the cross! Thus, even if he allowed one part of the Cathodox heresy, he never would have done the latter part. Contrast this compromised way of thinking with the early church’s utter silence on the issue of bowing to crosses, except for the occasional remark that Christians DON’T bow to crosses!
For you are under the delusion, like some others, that our god is an ass’s head. Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people’s minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of animal. And so from that point, I think, it was presumed that we too, as relatives of the Jewish religion, are initiated into the same image. But indeed the same Cornelius Tacitus — that most loquacious of liars — relates in the same history that Pompey, when he had captured Jerusalem and for that reason had entered the temple to inspect the secrets of the Jewish religion, found no image there. Yet surely if worship was rendered to any visible object, the very place for its exhibition would be the shrine, especially because it did not fear outside observers, however vain the cult might be. For it was permitted only to the priests to enter, and the view of the others was forbidden by an outstretched veil. You will not, however, deny that all beasts of burden, and not parts of them, but the animals entire, are with their goddess Epona objects of worship with you. It is this, perhaps, which displeases you in us, that while your worship here is universal, we do homage only to the ass. Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us. If you offer homage to a piece of wood at all, it matters little what it is like when the substance is the same: it is of no consequence the form, if you have the very body of the god. And yet how far does the Athenian Pallas differ from the stock of the cross, or the Pharian Ceres as she is put up uncarved to sale, a mere rough stake and piece of shapeless wood? Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross; we render our adoration, if you will have it so, to a god entire and complete. We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses. I praise your zeal: you would not consecrate crosses unclothed and unadorned. Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our god. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sun-day to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant. – Tertullian (197 AD), The Apology, Chapter 16
Thus they invoke their deity, they supplicate their images, they implore their Genius, that is, their demon; and it is safer to swear falsely by the genius of Jupiter than by that of a king. Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? – Mark Minucius Felix (210 AD) The Octavius Chapter 29
“But do you think it’s a sin to bow to the cross?”
Think about this logically. Think about the enemy you have, who is always trying to think of clever ways to deceive you and destroy you. If Satan’s goal is to make you an idolater, how do you think he will try to accomplish that? When he sees the whole world believing in Jesus and abandoning idolatry, what is the best tactic to use in order to gradually introduce idolatry? What tactic did he use with Israel? He took a lawful image, the symbol of the cross, and he enticed them to worship the symbol of their salvation.